I was looking at my photo library and wanted to get an idea what focal length I mostly shoot at. Having various lenses at different point in time, the library indicates over 50% of my photos are taken using the original 24-70L alone. I have used it at weddings, family events, and for walk around. It has been a workhorse of a lens for me, and while one had to be lucky to get a good copy of it, I feel mine was not bad and am mostly happy with the images it gave me.

I am not looking to buy the MKII just yet, but if the contrast and sharpness (I dont care about corner sharpness but center to mid/outer frame should be sharp) is significantly improved over the original 24-70L at f2.8 then I might consider upgrading to the MKII (somewhere down the line).

I was wondering if others out there made the jump from the original 24-70L to the MKII, and noticed the improvements in real world situations, especially in terms of sharpness wide open at both ends.

We had two copies of the 24-70 mk1. One was quite a bit sharper than the other but no match for the mk2. I like that 24-105L, just a bit slow and not in same category as the mk2 24-70 when it comes to sharpness. I'd have to look at my lens tests to know if the 24-105 was sharper than my sharp 24-70- either way it was close and the 24-105 has IS which is nice (but f4 isn't ideal for what I use it for).

The new mkII version is noticeably sharper than the sharpest mk1 lens we had especially wide open. The mk1 was noticeably sharper at f4 than at 2.8 (even in center). The new one is almost as sharp at 2.8 as at f4, pretty amazing. The lens also produces warmer, more natural looking images. When I say sharper I was a bit blown away when I compared the images. Just looking at the leaves on distant trees the older lens was a bit blurry and the new one was tack sharp- looks like a good prime lens. Really can't go wrong with this lens except the price

Sorry, can't answer your question about contrast- don't have a great way to test it.

Coming back to the multiple copies we had of the Mk1... We replaced both with mk2 and both mk2 lenses were about the same sharpness so another argument for that lens is that you're more likely to get a good sample.

On the negative side I really don't like the stiffness of the zoom compared to the mk1. The mk1 felt better to me. Wonder if anyone else has an opinion on that.

That new 70-200 2.8L II is pretty sweet as well. Glad I waited 10+ years to refresh our lenses I'll be kicking myself when Canon comes out with an IS version of the lens no doubt though. Until then I'm super happy

I tried 3 copies of mrk I (2 new + 1 used), none of them could gave me the results I'm looking for.

YES...mrk II has better contrast and much sharper at f2.8. This is my most use lens. Follow by 70-200 f2.8 IS II and of course 50L when there almost no light.

Many posters ended up buying this lens after they posted similar questions

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I'm not Dylan, but for me, I've never been thrilled with the 16-35 II, and the 24-70 II does give me less incentive to use it. The zoom is nice in some situations, but if I know I have time to set up the shot properly, I'd rather carry a wide prime (i.e. TS-E 17) instead of 16-35 II. I'd still be carrying two lenses, but something like a TS-E would give me additional flexibility for losing the the ability to zoom.

I tried 3 copies of mrk I (2 new + 1 used), none of them could gave me the results I'm looking for.

YES...mrk II has better contrast and much sharper at f2.8. This is my most use lens. Follow by 70-200 f2.8 IS II and of course 50L when there almost no light.

Many posters ended up buying this lens after they posted similar questions

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I still using 16-35 for lanscapes. I like the effects of 16mm. Most of my landscape shots I took are @ 16mm. I'm thinking 14mm prime though, since 16-35 is not quite sharp @ f2.8.

I mainly use 24-70 for indoor family & candid photos. This lens is pretty straight forward: sharp & fast AF.

Upgraded as soon as it was available and NEVER looked back. Sharpness significantly better, contrast and overall color rendering also 'cleaner' and more natural (less flat). Zoom lock is a plus (usually), and I prefer a slightly tighter focus ring (especially when doing videos).

I tried 3 copies of mrk I (2 new + 1 used), none of them could gave me the results I'm looking for.

YES...mrk II has better contrast and much sharper at f2.8. This is my most use lens. Follow by 70-200 f2.8 IS II and of course 50L when there almost no light.

Many posters ended up buying this lens after they posted similar questions

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I still using 16-35 for lanscapes. I like the effects of 16mm. Most of my landscape shots I took are @ 16mm. I'm thinking 14mm prime though, since 16-35 is not quite sharp @ f2.8.

I mainly use 24-70 for indoor family & candid photos. This lens is pretty straight forward: sharp & fast AF.

A lot of people who bought the 24-70 mark ii are trying to convince themselves as well as others that they made a good(perhaps "worth it") purchase. Wake up people don't lie. The fact is, this argument whether the mark ii is worth the upgrade from mark 1 is the same thing as the argument of having more pixels. When you only view the image 100% crop then you will notice those things. Other than that, you will barely notice(if you will notice) the better sharpness. For the record, i owned both but end up selling the mark ii after 2 months of extensive use.

I tried 3 copies of mrk I (2 new + 1 used), none of them could gave me the results I'm looking for.

YES...mrk II has better contrast and much sharper at f2.8. This is my most use lens. Follow by 70-200 f2.8 IS II and of course 50L when there almost no light.

Many posters ended up buying this lens after they posted similar questions

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I still using 16-35 for lanscapes. I like the effects of 16mm. Most of my landscape shots I took are @ 16mm. I'm thinking 14mm prime though, since 16-35 is not quite sharp @ f2.8.

I mainly use 24-70 for indoor family & candid photos. This lens is pretty straight forward: sharp & fast AF.

How many Landscapes do you shoot at F2.8....

Not very much, but it does become handy when needed for night shots without tripod.

A lot of people who bought the 24-70 mark ii are trying to convince themselves as well as others that they made a good(perhaps "worth it") purchase. Wake up people don't lie. The fact is, this argument whether the mark ii is worth the upgrade from mark 1 is the same thing as the argument of having more pixels. When you only view the image 100% crop then you will notice those things. Other than that, you will barely notice(if you will notice) the better sharpness. For the record, i owned both but end up selling the mark ii after 2 months of extensive use.

We can always use Canon MTF charts to compare btw mrk I Vs II. Or results from FoCal users. Which data do you want to see?